LETTER: Food labelling has little effect

The emotional, misleading and subjective statements made by the Healthy Living Alliance (Heala) in its “advertorial” [October 5-11, placed in the FM as an advert] must be challenged.

First, its reference to the successful implementation of the proposed food-labelling regulations, incorporating front-of pack nutritional labelling in Chile, is not a true reflection of the facts. Seven years after their introduction there, the impact has been minimal, with reported reductions in typical intake of less than 1% for energy and saturated fat, less than 2% for sodium and about 4% for sugar. Not exactly figures that will affect the obesity statistics.

Second, the proposed labelling provisions are only a portion of a vast, overcomplex, badly worded and unenforceable regulation that contains components that are either not aligned with global food regulatory practices or constitute World Trade Organisation technical barriers to trade. The food industry has every right to push back against these, particularly as it is clear from the Chilean experience that the benefits to public health will be negligible.

Heala would be well advised to dedicate its budget to establishing a decent nutrition education programme for schools rather than slinging mud at an industry that, while not perfect, feeds us all in a reasonably efficient manner and kept the shelves filled during Covid, only to be then hit with load-shedding, collapsing infrastructure and huge increases in input costs.

The last thing the industry needs is unworkable legislation that has been shown to be ineffective. While any initiative to improve our eating habits is to be commended, you can’t change people’s eating behaviour through regulation.

Nigel Sunley
Sunley Consulting, Technical consultancy to the food industry

The FM welcomes concise letters from readers. They can be sent to fmmail@fm.co.za